EU consultation
8 submissions from 7 organizations told the European Commission what they think about this file. Here is what each of them said, in their own words.
The Commission received 18 submissions on this file. Shown here: the 8 from organizations. Not shown: 10 from private individuals. Their submissions are personal data; the Commission publishes them under its own legal basis, and republishing them by name here would need one we do not have. Organizations act in a public capacity, so their positions are public record. About this data →
2 submissions from industry (companies and their trade associations) against 2 from civil society: NGOs, consumer organizations, environmental groups and trade unions.
Groupings use the respondent type each organization selected when filing. Counting submissions, not organizations: a body that filed twice is counted twice.
The file, right now
The consultation is open: 40 days left to submit. It closes on 24 Nov 2026.
Responding? PolicySpeak drafts consultation responses grounded in your organization’s own positions. Request access.
How it got here
Also on the Commission’s pipeline for this file, with no date recorded: Initiative planned, Proposal for a regulation.
Showing 8 of 8 submissions.
· · filed 5 Oct 2026 · source
Interest section of the Article 53 certificate In cross-border enforcement practice, the information relating to interest is not always sufficiently clear for enforcement authorities in other Member States. The certificate should enable the enforcement authority to determine the enforceable amount without having to establish the content of foreign interest legislation.
· · filed 5 Oct 2026 · source
Penalty payments (astreintes) The Regulation does not clearly address the enforcement of penalty payments that accrue after issuance of the Article 53 certificate. In practice, certificates are often issued shortly after the judgment, while the penalty payments may continue to accrue afterwards.
· · filed 15 Sept 2026 · source
Article 7(1)(c) CTMR In the case of the provision of services, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided; The issue is the interpretation of the place of supply of services, since some courts consider that there must be a single place of supply of services, ergo, the court having jurisdiction over the place where, according to the court concerned…
Filed in Polish · English published by the European Commission
· · filed 11 Sept 2026 · source
The Association for the Protection of Citizen’s Rights – AVES, as a qualified entity under Directive (EU) 2020/1828, proposes that the revision of the Brussels Ia Regulation introduce a specific jurisdiction rule for representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers.
Filed in Slovak · English published by the European Commission
We support the Commissions objective to simplify, clarify and modernise the Brussels Ia Regulation in order to strengthen legal certainty, reduce litigation costs and administrative burdens, and improve the competitiveness of EU businesses in cross-border transactions. The Commission also explicitly identifies digitalisation as an area to be addressed in the review.
I am in favour of reviewing the Brussels Ia Regulation. After more than 10 years of application, a clarification of certain rules can enhance legal certainty without undermining the overall balance of the Regulation. In my view, particular attention should be paid to the foreseeability of the court having jurisdiction.
Filed in French · English published by the European Commission
Paragraph 25 of the Brussels Regulation (recast) notes the instrument covers provisional or protective measures meant to obtain information or preserve evidence. As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more prevalent in society, deepfakes (digital replicas) will be seen in court in increasing numbers, thereby threatening the legitimacy of judicial proceedings both by increasing the cost of litigation and by casting…
The Federal Association ANUAS e.V. welcomes the review of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels Ia Regulation) and participates from the perspective of co-victims of homicides. Co-victims are relatives whose close person has died as a result of a violent crime and who themselves suffer significant psychological, social, economic and legal harm as a result of that crime.
Filed in German · English published by the European Commission
Method. Every quote is verbatim from the organization’s own submission to the European Commission, trimmed to its opening passage and never summarized by a model. Where a submission was filed in another EU language we show the English text the European Commission publishes alongside it, labeled on the quote; the original is one click away at the source. Groupings use the respondent type the organization itself selected when filing. We deliberately do not label anyone “supportive” or “opposed”. You read what they wrote and draw your own conclusion. Organizations only, never individuals. Reused under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU; the European Commission is not liable for this reuse.